Do you think people convicted of statutory rape are a threat to society?

Should people who are convicted for having consensual sex with a (willing) minor be listed on sex offender registries, so that society can be warned of their existence? (Note: I am referring to the minor as being over the age of fourteen, and already sexually active.)

No. Who can help the fact that they're fast? If a guy is having sex with a girl that he KNOWS is underage, you can perhaps work with that....but to screw up his life for some hot in the ass little girl? Nope.

I don't think they should spend a lifetime on the registry.

Agree with everyone. The sex offender registry is a travesty.

No. But I guess it also depends on how young she is and if he had prior knowledge. If a grown man sleeps with a consenting 14 y/o (all the time knowing their age), then he should be marked for it in some kind of way.

Chris wrote:Should people who are convicted for having consensual sex with a (willing) minor be listed on sex offender registries, so that society can be warned of their existence? (Note: I am referring to the minor as being over the age of fourteen, and already sexually active.)

The short answer is no. And the only thing these people are "guilty" of as far as I'm concered is breaking an antiquated law designed by religious puritans with a holier than thou sense of morality, inconsistent with reality. In any other time in virtually any other society, a victimless crime like this would be laughed at and not taken serious. The fact that it has "rape" in the title completely diminishes the legitimacy of the term rape in my opinion and belittles the power of that word. Real rape is a tragic crime that should NEVER happen. It is the violation by force of an unconsenting victim. Statutory rape is nonsense and about as legitimate as a crime as homosexuality being made "illegal" and punishable by imprisonment is in Sudan.

I think that sex acts on prepubescent "children" should be illegal and considered child molestation. But pubescent teenagers can consent to whatever the hell they want to in reality, but only what we adults say they can legally. There is no consistency with those arbitrary rules either. It varies from individual to individual, state to state, nation to nation and law to law. Why is the legal age of consent 16 in Massachusetts and New Jersey, but 18 in Arizona and Florida? Why is the age of consent 13 in Spain and Japan, 14 in Germany and Italy, 15 in France and Denmark, 16 in Canada and 12 in Mexico? Does this make any goddamn since or is it just the locals making up numbers? The point is, there is no logic to "statutory rape". Child molestation yes, RAPE yes, but "statutory rape"? Seriously?

Having said that, since it IS still on the books as a crime, highly stigmatized in our puritan society and judged as "pedophilia" (which is another ounce of ignorance), the fact is that people convicted of this crime are registered sex offenders. I'm not an advocate of breaking the law (even stupid ones), but I do have a problem with the "sex offender" label because people just assume that anyone who is a registered sex offender is of the most dangerous and worst kind of scum out there (rapists and child molesters). So my real problem is with the label sex offender and the fact that there are no distinctions between different kinds of sex offenders. The intent of the "sex offender" label is for people to protect themselves and in particular "children" from PREDATORS. With that intent in mind, where is the logic of labeling someone guilty of statutory rape a "sex offender"? I invite any and all criticism to my logic.